We’ve identified five key General Retention and Disposal Schedule (GRDS) challenges that you can read about in this Discussion Paper. We need your help to shape the GRDS!
GRDS Renewal Challenge 3: Numbering
From the responses received so far to our GRDS Renewal discussion paper, NUMBERING is by far the worst pain point for public authorities and the greatest barrier to effectively implementing the GRDS.
While responses to the GRDS version 7 release have been overwhelmingly positive, many of you have indicated that implementing the revised schedule into an eDRMS is too time-consuming and resource intensive. Based on this we know that some form of unique numbering is required – but we need your help to determine what form this numbering will take.
Why do we have numbers in our schedules at all?
Numbering is an important part of the disposal authorisation because:
- it assists transparent, accountable and consistent disposal of public records; and
- it enables public authorities to demonstrate (to the public, the courts, etc.) that public records have lawfully been destroyed.
Information Standard (IS) 31 – Retention and disposal of public records sets out the minimum numbering requirements for disposal documentation (for schedules, this is the QDAN, version number and record class number from the schedule).
As part of the GRDS Renewal process, everything is on the table and we can change IS31 down the track if required. So if each record class has a unique disposal authorisation number, QDANs and version numbers could become a thing of the past!
Case Study – another possible solution?
While entering the GRDS numbering into an eDRMS is difficult for many agencies, a couple of our agencies already get around this by not importing any record class numbers into their system at all. Instead the reference numbers they enter are based around the retention periods as follows:
|QDAN 249-E-000||Ephemeral – Short term temporary|
|QDAN 249-PERM||Permanent retention|
|QDAN 249-T-001||1 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-002||2 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-003||3 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-005||5 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-007||7 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-010||10 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-015||15 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-020||20 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-025||25 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-030||30 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-050||50 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-070||70 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-075||75 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-080||80 year retention|
|QDAN 249-T-080-HR||80 year retention (Personnel)|
|QDAN 249-T-100||100 year retention|
The relevant reference number from the schedule is then recorded at the time of the disposal as part of the internal disposal authorisation process.
When the GRDS is updated, the agency scans the summary of changes to locate changes to retention periods and the relevant eDRMS files then have their retention codes changed in the system.
So to help with the renewal journey we have some questions for you.
Does your system require reference numbers do you just need the retention period so that disposal dates can be calculated?
Can your system handle unique barcode reference numbers?
Could your system handle a reference string (like the one used by the University Sector, e.g. 601.3/C133)?
Would your numbering preferences change if functions and/or activities were removed from the GRDS?
Of all the options discussed in the blog and discussion paper, what is your number 1 preference?
Do you have any other suggestions that would help with the implementation of a schedule into a system?
We would love to hear from you so why not drop us a line to firstname.lastname@example.org or leave a comment below.